TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC

Look at that nice smooth U in the wind line mid-day with solar peak. (I can call it the "sticking tongue out" curve.) That's programmed curtailment, I bet. We can't install those batteries soon enough!! But, they seem to be using the wind as dispatchable energy, so they don't have to turn on fossil fuels. But what they're actually doing is continuing to use fossil fuels during that time period. So, it's not all good. The only way to have all clean energy is to store it up in the day time and when the wind is blowing, such as in batteries, or something crazy like overbuild everything by 100x but that's just nuts. Meanwhile, overbuilding now is OK since we will fill in with storage and transmission too.

Also notice the 400MW gap in solar from 16-16:45; that's either one hell of a solid cloud covering exactly 400MW of farms for that exact period, or it's some type of curtailment. This time it doesn't have quite the signature that I could tell either way like in times past, but with that jagged closeout of the wave, I'd say it's not natural.

Note that it is the excess smoothness of one wave that I consider unnatural, and the excess jaggedness of another wave that I find unnatural.

Reading these charts you can clearly read what's going on.

Looking back at the previous post with the net demand chart, look at that net demand rise from 17:30-19:30: 8GW straight up. Seriously, we can't run Los Angeles Water Project pumps in the day and shut them off from 17:30-23:30? Other than that, it is what it is, until we get more storage.

Also looking back at the net demand chart, the overnight net demand is 3GW-6GW higher than the mid-day net demand. The tarrifs still charge more for time during low net demand periods, than at night with the fossil fuels burning. So, here's some dynamics on that:

Mid-day, NEM (Net Electric Metering) customers get a higher reimbursement for excess solar in mid-day that they're not using as much. This helps incentivize solar power.

Mid-day, a lot of electricity prices are negative, which means that the generators (some utility owned) have to pay CAISO to go ahead and "buy" (for negative dollars) the electricity delivered to it. This means the various generators are losing money for every bit of energy they sell at a negative price, is what I interpret that to mean. Anybody correct me? But, then, the same utilities that just "sold" it at negative prices (bought the right to produce something and deliver it), now take delivery of that (cheap) energy from CAISO, possibly also being paid to collect it at the other end, to turn around and gouge their (non-solar) customers with, making back whatever money they lost on the having to push the excess energy onto market in the first place. Since I don't see any of the numbers in front of me and I'm not sure where exactly to look, I can't confirm this.

So, it's a lot of in-the-weeds stuff that looks like non-market rate pricing at the customer side. I think the way the Duck Curve gets fixed is passing through the market rate pricing to the customers. Meanwhile, huge investments are being pushed for solar, so they don't want to disrupt that delicate balance. I think there's a general feeling we want to get another couple of years under our belt of solar and batteries installed before we loosen up the reigns on government designed pricing and let it get more market rate. I wish we didn't have to ingrain that approach; what if we ramp up market rate pricing, 10% shift from government pricing to market rate (passed all the way through to end users) per year, over the next 10 years? That way, we could track the market effects and still have the regulators meet goals, while we all sort of transition to the new way of doing business; the margins would be plenty to give big players and visionaries enough information to work with.

Thanks for the info, even though I do not understand some of it my gut feeling is that PG&E will find away to circumvent solar production. The CPUC denied the application to eliminate Net Metering, that was amazing since they usually just sign off on anything they want. I think is just a matter of time and that will happen, they keep trying to find ways to make more money. Hopefully buy that time the powerwall will be more affordable and more efficient.

If this much curtailment is happening, isn't it in everyone's interest to subsidize grid inter-connected smart powerwalls to soak up excess? If you're regularly throwing the juice away, anything dumped into a battery is just found money right? How is that not deserving of a market push?

Also notice the 400MW gap in solar from 16-16:45; that's either one hell of a solid cloud covering exactly 400MW of farms for that exact period, or it's some type of curtailment. This time it doesn't have quite the signature that I could tell either way like in times past, but with that jagged closeout of the wave, I'd say it's not natural.

Click to expand...

I wonder if the above-mentioned anomaly as well as a similar one on the other side of the curve at 08:00 might be explained by the times at which industrial and commercial rooftop solar arrays begin and end their in-house power use at the beginning and end of the work day?

Not be a complainer, but I would like to know why hydro energy stays on full constant force all day even causing low income situations for the dam operators, when they could be storing their potential in the dams during higher solar and wind and releasing more in the evening ramp up? Look at the following price map for a few minutes ago and yesterday's hydro profile; the backwards prices cluster around two spots: hydro near Sac area mountains, and that zone between the desert solar farms and more mountain hydro south of Yosemite a bit so probably getting the pincer effect:

By my view, Hydro could close their gates and deliver less electricity during the day (target just enough to keep the river fish happy), then come back big time to cover the evening rush up. The dam operators could ramp up this behavior over a week giving warning to the river dwellers of the new style (rises when the sun goes down or wind dies down), so no huge effects happen. The fact they're not already doing this shows a total lack of commitment to environmental causes from the state and the dam operators. The fish lobby isn't powerful enough to rule the clean energy benefit (~5GW swing capability to offset evening use, which we can already see being unused for a few GWh potential this year but could easily ramp up to dozens of GWh in the next few years, at least during and after rainy and snowy seasons), unless energy savings is just a side benefit of the state's huge push for clean energy (which would mean there's some layer of the clean energy governance that doesn't care about clean energy).

HYDRO AND NUCLEAR ARE RENEWABLES. They should be next to the green band above. And hydro could be saving pollution right now if they just did the minimal of administration on it.

Not be a complainer, but I would like to know why hydro energy stays on full constant force all day even causing low income situations for the dam operators, when they could be storing their potential in the dams during higher solar and wind and releasing more in the evening ramp up? Look at the following price map for a few minutes ago and yesterday's hydro profile; the backwards prices cluster around two spots: hydro near Sac area mountains, and that zone between the desert solar farms and more mountain hydro south of Yosemite a bit so probably getting the pincer effect:

View attachment 223753View attachment 223754View attachment 223755
By my view, Hydro could close their gates and deliver less electricity during the day (target just enough to keep the river fish happy), then come back big time to cover the evening rush up. The dam operators could ramp up this behavior over a week giving warning to the river dwellers of the new style (rises when the sun goes down or wind dies down), so no huge effects happen. The fact they're not already doing this shows a total lack of commitment to environmental causes from the state and the dam operators. The fish lobby isn't powerful enough to rule the clean energy benefit (~5GW swing capability to offset evening use, which we can already see being unused for a few GWh potential this year but could easily ramp up to dozens of GWh in the next few years, at least during and after rainy and snowy seasons), unless energy savings is just a side benefit of the state's huge push for clean energy (which would mean there's some layer of the clean energy governance that doesn't care about clean energy).

HYDRO AND NUCLEAR ARE RENEWABLES. They should be next to the green band above. And hydro could be saving pollution right now if they just did the minimal of administration on it.

Click to expand...

They do just what you describe (or did back when there was water behind the dam) from Lake Powell on the Colorado River. River rafters had to camp far enough up from the banks not to be flooded out when the dam is releasing more water. They also had to time their rapids runs for when water depth was right for a good experience.

The problem with hydro right now in California is that we have such a huge snowpack and full reservoirs, so they have to let the water out continuously to provide more acre-feet of capacity to avoid flooding when snow really starts to melt.

So, it's a lot of in-the-weeds stuff that looks like non-market rate pricing at the customer side. I think the way the Duck Curve gets fixed is passing through the market rate pricing to the customers. Meanwhile, huge investments are being pushed for solar, so they don't want to disrupt that delicate balance. I think there's a general feeling we want to get another couple of years under our belt of solar and batteries installed before we loosen up the reigns on government designed pricing and let it get more market rate. I wish we didn't have to ingrain that approach; what if we ramp up market rate pricing, 10% shift from government pricing to market rate (passed all the way through to end users) per year, over the next 10 years? That way, we could track the market effects and still have the regulators meet goals, while we all sort of transition to the new way of doing business; the margins would be plenty to give big players and visionaries enough information to work with.

Click to expand...

Your analysis is incomplete because it does not take into account PPAs

If this much curtailment is happening, isn't it in everyone's interest to subsidize grid inter-connected smart powerwalls to soak up excess? If you're regularly throwing the juice away, anything dumped into a battery is just found money right? How is that not deserving of a market push?

Click to expand...

Yep, but the political response is:

1) increasing demand by expanding the ISO control area beyond California to other states so that low cost surplus energy can serve consumers over a large geographical area;
2) increase participation in the western Energy Imbalance Market in which real-time energy is made available in western states;
3) transition our cars and trucks to electricity;
4) offer consumers time-of-use rates that promote using electricity during the day when there is plentiful solar energy and the potential for oversupply is higher;
5) increase energy storage; and
6) increase the flexibility of power plants to more quickly follow ISO instructions to change its generation output levels.

The problem with hydro right now in California is that we have such a huge snowpack and full reservoirs, so they have to let the water out continuously to provide more acre-feet of capacity to avoid flooding when snow really starts to melt.

Click to expand...

They can't let more out (then during the day essentially turn it almost off and let it refill)?

Is anyplace doing that yet? Right now weekdays the peak solar is mostly during peak customer cost.

Click to expand...

Its on CAISO's oversupply mitigation agenda, as are 1-6. It runs counter to our past consumption indoctrination, but as incremental non-conventional production rates continue to outpace storage, we'll be retrained. Wouldn't be surprised if its not being piloted in CA somewhere but utilities will need repricing plans approved, regulations will need changes and curtailment a norm rather than an exception before any motivation of scale can begin. Most interesting to me will be the advancing distribution of say CA generated power to other less sunny states. Wonder if "juiced in California" can carry a premium? It'll be fascinating to watch the export biz play out over the next decade.....it could surpass the ag biz for CA.

California is at the western corner of the USA, that is a vulnerable spot for avoiding blackouts with a high % of solar generation. Far easier to avoid blackouts with similar solar % in central or eastern sides of a grid.

CASIO will need to continue 'oversupply' to continue stability

and midday electricity will becomes cheapest, except when its not. (ie cheap in sunny weather, expensive in cloudy weather)

Is anyplace doing that yet? Right now weekdays the peak solar is mostly during peak customer cost.

They can't let more out (then during the day essentially turn it almost off and let it refill)?

Click to expand...

I do not have a solid answer. However, I do know that water in California is a very complex resource. There are many, many players in California's water picture, from the monolithic LADWP to tiny irrigation agencies throughout the state to people/companies who, believe it or not still have riparian rights to surface water. Everybody, and I mean everybody, hammered out agreements in the late '50s-early '60s in order to assure themselves of water during good years and bad. Compounding the situation is that these agreements fall under federal and state law, depending on the source. I believe that Shasta and Whiskeytown are federal projects and Oroville is state. (It has been awhile since I researched this, and I am too lazy.)

California's water projects start in the Trinity Alps outside Weaverville. There, water that would ultimately flow into the Klamath River to the Pacific between Eureka and Crescent City is pumped into a reservoir whose outlet is Clear Creek, a tributary of the mighty Sacramento River. Shasta Lake north of Redding is the second reservoir that impounds water on the Sacramento. In addition to those two, the Feather River (Oroville Dam) and its tributaries below the dam (Yuba and Bear Rivers) and the American River both dump their contents into the Sacramento.

Holders of water rights in the San Joaquin Valley (primarily the Tuolumne, Merced, San Joaquin and Kings Rivers) exchanged most of their rights to receive water from the federal/state Central Valley Project in order to allow for those rivers to flow into the delta and be part of the mix.

Water from the Sacramento/San Joaquin River delta is then allocated between its natural egress into San Francisco Bay and pumped through the delta and then stored at San Luis Reservoir (you know, that huge water impoundment near Pacheco Pass alongside SR152 east of Gilroy.) So, there are competing interests between the estuary and the water contracts. In addition, the delta region is below sea level, protected from inundation by levees many of which were constructed in the 19th Century. Water at San Luis is stored and released into the California Aqueduct to satisfy contracts to a host of entities.

My opinion is that unlike Lake Powell, there are just too many players involved in our water delivery system. Fluctuating flows just for the purpose of taking hydropower offline for several hours possibly could injure one or more parties to the contracts that have been legislated, agreed-upon, and litigated multiple times.

While what I wrote is correct, it might not necessarily be the answer to your statement. But it is my story, and I am sticking with it!

Thank you, everyone, for explaining to me the missing chunks. I had some knowledge of them, but it's really hard for me to have the type of integrated knowledge on this topic that I already have on, say, computer programming and communications networks (which I grew up with since my first modem when I was 13 for the last 33 years); my knowledge of these water and energy issues was hidden by me not being part of the water negotiating being done in the 1950s and 1960s (I wasn't born, and I never lived on a farm), and the energy utility practices, contracts, laws and regs (I've never worked in or for an energy utility concern); I've been aware of the major and many minor issues to be handled, but had no idea of the history and current handling of them, and due to my general non-familiarity didn't know of some of the topic specific knowledge. But, I've always been keenly interested in it anyway, so I've been seeing these huge gaps, and didn't know what to make of them. This helps quite a bit.

Meta

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.